list_appsList available Appmixer connectors, optionally filtered by category, so you can identify apps to inspect and use in workflows.
List apps (connectors) available on this Appmixer tenant, e.g. "appmixer.utils", "appmixer.slack". Use get_components to inspect an app's components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category, e.g. "applications" or "utilities". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to 'this Appmixer tenant' and that entries are app/connector identifiers, but it says nothing about result volume, whether the full list is returned or paginated, or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the sibling hand-off. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is listed, how identifiers look, and where to go next. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'category' parameter is documented in-schema with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the category filter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb plus resource: 'List apps (connectors) available on this Appmixer tenant', and it disambiguates the returned identifiers with concrete examples like "appmixer.utils" and "appmixer.slack". An agent can distinguish this listing tool from sibling tools such as get_components or list_flows without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear usage context and explicitly points to get_components as the tool for drilling into an app's components, which prevents an agent from using this for component discovery. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. it never says the tool does not return components or accounts), and it never mentions the category filter as a usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.